Crime: Money-laundering and Terrorist Finance

Lord West of Spithead: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction (Alan Campbell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have placed in the Library of the House the second annual report to Home Office and HM Treasury Ministers on the suspicious activity reporting (SAR) regime to combat money-laundering and terrorist financing. The reporting system is a key element in the United Kingdom's defences against money-laundering and terrorist financing.
	The report has been prepared by a multi-agency committee, under the chairmanship of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), which includes the financial services sector, police, other law enforcement agencies, and the Financial Services Authority. As the report notes, awareness of the value of financial intelligence in fighting crime and countering terrorism continues to rise across the international community.
	The Government welcome the steady progress that SOCA and the other participants have made to ensure that the reporting system is operating so as to help deter, detect and disrupt those involved in these crimes and in holding them to account. It is important to build on this progress by further improvements, including in the use made of the reports by law enforcement agencies.
	The overall goal is a SARs system that addresses the threats to the UK from crime and terrorism, contributes to the reduction of harm and the recovery of the proceeds of crime while minimising the costs of compliance to industry and others.

Data Loss

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	This Statement is to update the House on the loss of sensitive data on a hard drive by electronic data systems (EDS), which became known to Ministers on 6 September 2008. I have now received the results of the internal investigation into this matter, which was undertaken by a National Offender Management Service (NOMS) director with no prior involvement in the incident.
	The investigation has confirmed that initial reports over-stated the volume of data involved. The hard drive contained 256 items of sensitive personal information that could potentially, if in the public domain, cause damage to that individual; namely, bank details, address details, and national insurance numbers coupled with dates of birth. There remains no indication that this information has entered the public domain.
	The investigation found that the data had been downloaded to the hard drive so it could be transferred to another site as part of a disaster recovery exercise carried out in July 2007. While no problems arose regarding the implementation of the exercise itself, the disk was not wiped before it was to be removed from the site and thereafter EDS failed to take adequate measures to track or record the location of the hard drive when it was transferred to another site. Although strictly the hard drive was not at that time being removed for other uses, it ought to have been treated as such and EDS' company policy at that time, requiring a disk to be purged prior to release for any other purpose, ought to have been followed.
	This did not comply with data protection principles, and also meant that the investigation could not identify precisely when or where the hard drive went missing. The possibility of theft has resulted in this matter being referred to the West Mercia Police. EDS is taking appropriate action, which will include disciplinary action if necessary, concerning the staff involved.
	The inadequacy of EDS' tracking systems meant that the data was not missed until 2 July 2008. On 3 July, EDS notified NOMS verbally of the data loss, the possible scope of which was made apparent in a written interim report to the NOMS IT security team on 4 July. There is no evidence of any other communication between EDS and NOMS on this issue until 6 September, when the matter was raised by the press, although EDS were preparing a final report to submit to NOMS.
	The NOMS IT security team did not take sufficient action following receipt of the interim report, with the result that senior officials and Ministers were not aware of the loss until 6 September, when comprehensive and appropriate action was taken to identify and contact any staff involved and to investigate further the circumstances of the loss. NOMS is taking appropriate action, including disciplinary action, concerning the staff involved.
	In the context of the Hannigan review and subsequent Cabinet Office guidelines, NOMS and EDS were both actively improving data protection processes before this matter arose. Since 6 September, EDS and NOMS have agreed an additional set of measures to be undertaken, at EDS' cost, both to reimburse NOMS for its additional expenses arising from the incident and to further develop the security of NOMS' information assets. These include an exercise to identify all uncontrolled copies of NOMS' sensitive data and have such copies destroyed in a secure manner, as well as reviewing and strengthening the policies and process controls which govern the transfer of NOMS data. In addition, the number of transfers using removable media will be reduced, and encryption will be introduced on removable media. A further, detailed review will also be undertaken to identify and prioritise any additional security measures to be enhanced. Finally, EDS has committed to the design, development and delivery of appropriate classroom and computer-based training packages for both EDS and NOMS staff. An annual, independent audit of EDS' compliance with security standards will be introduced with a requirement for EDS to rectify any areas of non-compliance.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Ensuring that learners are able to access education and training post-16 is a key priority for this Government. I would like to update the House on the current situation in regard to the delivery of education maintenance allowances (EMA).
	There have been processing and other related problems since Liberata won the contract to deliver helpline, assessment and payment functions for EMA and other learner support schemes in July 2007. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has been closely monitoring the situation and has been regularly providing me with updates, which I have shared with the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee.
	As of Tuesday 18 November, 794,655 applications (237,826 more than 8 October, the date of my previous letter) have been processed. This has resulted in 485,396 young people (201,516 more than at that time) receiving notifications that they are entitled to EMAs, which means they can begin claiming the allowance. There are currently 12,016 applications in the process of being finalised (down from 111,000 on 8 October).
	Despite this progress, the LSC's view has been that in order to preserve the best interests of learners a change in contractor was necessary. The LSC has been in talks with Liberata about the future of the contract for over four weeks and yesterday informed me that it intends to discontinue the Liberata contract. I have been clear from the outset that these delays have been totally unacceptable and I therefore fully back the LSC's decision to change contractor to Capita.
	The transfer of the EMA helpline, processing and payment service from Liberata to Capita will take effect from Friday 28 November. With effect from that date, Capita will bring in a new senior management team to oversee the staff and operations in Coventry, Manchester and Darlington. The transfer will place us in a stronger position to fix the helpline and processing problems, enabling us to improve the future service for young people, colleges and learning providers.
	The migration of the learner support service programme contract from Liberata will have resulted in Liberata losing future revenues of more than £60 million over the remaining term of the contract. In addition, in addressing the issues caused by the failure of their proposed IT system, Liberata rightly took the decision to employ significant numbers of additional temporary staff to deal with the backlog in applications. In doing so, it has incurred extraordinary additional costs and it has been judged inappropriate to impose further additional penalties.
	In order to ensure a smooth and orderly transition to a new service, the LSC has secured the transfer of the interim payment service to the new service provider and the transfer of physical IT assets and applications software at a cost of £4 million. The cost of this is significantly lower than the extraordinary additional costs which Liberata has incurred.
	These arrangements are within parameters approved by the Permanent Secretary in his principal accounting officer role, and by HM Treasury. The Permanent Secretary, in his principal accounting officer role, has reassured me that this agreement represents value for money for the taxpayer and protects the interests of learners.
	The payments being made to young people will continue, and during the transfer period outstanding applications will continue to be processed. As I have made clear before, all delayed payments will be backdated in full.
	Throughout this period of unacceptable delays, our main priority has been to ensure that learners get their payments. I am confident that the new arrangements the LSC has put in place are the best way to improve EMA delivery.
	I am placing in the House Library copies of correspondence from me to the chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee, to me from Mark Haysom, chief executive of the LSC, as well as the relevant statements from Liberata, the LSC and the department.

EU: Emissions Trading Scheme

Lord Myners: My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Angela Eagle) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Yesterday morning, the Government successfully held the UK's first auction of carbon allowances as part of phase 2 of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The auction was also the first of its kind to take place in Europe, demonstrating the UK's continuing leadership in the battle against dangerous climate change. Four million allowances were offered for sale and sold at a total value of £54 million, excluding VAT, or £13.60 per allowance. The auction was more than four times oversubscribed, demonstrating that the auction was competitive and that it attracted a significant amount of market interest.
	The ETS puts a cap on emissions from around 12,000 installations throughout the EU—including in the energy and heavy industrial sectors, which are collectively responsible for close to half of the EU's emissions of carbon dioxide. Any of these installations that exceed its emissions cap will need to purchase the ap4propriate number of allowances.
	Through auctions and the creation of a secondary market for allowances, the ETS is sending clear price signals. The carbon price will encourage Governments, businesses and individuals to factor the costs of emissions into their spending and investment decisions. A price for carbon creates an incentive to find products and processes that produce less carbon to achieve the same outcomes, which in turn encourages investment in the research and development of low carbon technologies.
	Next month's international climate change negotiations in Poznan present an opportunity for Governments around the world to consider innovative approaches like the ETS as a means to counter the dangers of climate change. Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland have already joined the ETS and work on other cap and trade schemes is under way in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The ETS is well positioned to form the basis of a global carbon market in the future.
	During 2009, the Government plan to auction a further 25 million allowances. Dates for future auctions will be announced in due course.

EU: Justice and Home Affairs Council

Lord Bach: The Justice and Home Affairs Council is due to be held on 27 and 28 November 2008 in Brussels. My right honourable friend Home Secretary (Jacqui Smith), the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill) and I intend to attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.
	The council will concentrate on interior and justice issues. The first day of the council will focus on interior items, starting with the Mixed Committee also attended by Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. During the Mixed Committee, Switzerland's accession to Schengen will be discussed. The UK supports Swiss accession into the Schengen area. There will also be a presentation by the presidency on the second generation Schengen information system (SIS II) in order to update member states on progress.
	At the council meeting, Gilles de Kerchove, the counterterrorism co-ordinator, will present his six-monthly report and discussion paper. The UK welcomes the report and de Kerchove's work, in particular his objectives on radicalisation and recruitment, communications, an EU strategy on data-sharing, action on and funding for Pakistan, and efforts to work with Turkey on the PKK.
	The council will be asked to approve council conclusions on a cybercrime strategy. These conclusions propose that the EU should work collectively to tackle cybercrime, and set out a number of actions that might be useful in achieving this. The proposals envisage that the EU member states should strengthen partnerships between government and private sectors, and between law enforcement agencies within the EU.
	The council will be asked to approve the presidency's report on progress with the EU PNR framework decision and provide a clear mandate for negotiations to continue under the Czech presidency. The UK will support this mandate and believes future negotiations should build on the successful work of the French presidency.
	The presidency will ask the council to endorse draft conclusions aimed at strengthening law enforcement action against drugs trafficking in West Africa. We fully support this initiative and will aim to ensure UK objectives are reflected in the council conclusions.
	On civil protection, the presidency will report on the work on European civil protection to be undertaken during the Czech and Swedish presidencies. Draft council conclusions on European disaster management training will be discussed, which include proposals for arrangements to link training centres in a network. The UK welcomes such a proposal which could help to enhance co-operation and the exchange of good practice across all aspects of disaster management. Draft council conclusions on the strengthening of civil protection capabilities through a system of mutual assistance will also be discussed. These call for voluntary measures to improve co-operation in disaster response, which could enable more rapid and effective mutual assistance to be made available through the civil protection mechanism. The UK also welcomes this.
	The presidency will report on the discussions held at the annual Western Balkans Ministerial Forum in Zagreb on 6 to 7 November. This forum aims to promote dialogue and regional co-operation in justice and home affairs matters, particularly combating organised crime and organised immigration crime. The UK sent two officials as observers.
	Regarding migration, the presidency will brief on the outcomes of the second Euro-African conference on migration and development to be held in Paris on 25 November. The draft council conclusions on the comprehensive approach to migration will be discussed. The UK is pleased that the global approach to migration, initiated by the UK presidency in 2005, remains the basis for the EU's work on migration with third countries. The UK believes that these conclusions also help ensure that we collectively understand and have put in place measures to tackle the challenges to delivery of improved partnerships with source and transit countries.
	The council will be asked to endorse the final conclusions of the Vichy ministerial conference on integration held on 3 and 4 November. The UK can agree with the document as it stands.
	The presidency will update the council on negotiations on a council directive that provides for a single application procedure for third-country nationals seeking to reside and work in a member state and for a common set of rights. The UK is not opting in to the proposed directive.
	The presidency is looking to agree the proposal for amending council Directive 2003/109/EC, which currently allows third-country nationals the right to long-term residence in a member state after five years of legal and continuous residence and permits them to have the same rights and duties as nationals. The Commission proposal would extend the scope of the directive to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, known as humanitarian protection in the UK. The UK has chosen not to opt in to the proposed extension of the directive because, as with the original directive, the UK believes it is not in line with its frontiers protocol and would want to determine the status of third-country nationals via the Immigration Rules.
	The council will discuss the proposal to amend the regulation on common consular instructions on visas which relates to the issuing of Schengen visas into a single code on visas. It aims to fill gaps in existing legislation and remove redundant provisions. The UK does not issue Schengen visas and therefore is not opted-in to this proposal. However, we welcome the efforts of Schengen member states to ensure that the Schengen external EU borders are as secure as possible.
	The proposal to amend council Regulation No. 2252/2004, establishing common standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents, will also be discussed. Member states wish to exclude children under the age of six and persons who are physically unable to give fingerprints for travel documents. The amendment also hopes to establish the principle of one person-one passport as a measure to prevent child trafficking. The UK is not opted-in but intends to keep abreast with any amendments. The UK does not support the exemption of persons under the age of six, but would prefer the bar to be set at 11: this would fit with our plans for synchronising the issuing of e-passports and ID cards. Children's passports would have a five-year validity and all passport holders aged 16 and over will have their fingerprints recorded. The UK introduced the one person-one passport principle in 1998.
	The European Commission will present the initial findings of the fact-finding mission to Syria and Jordan to investigate the Iraqi refugee situation.
	The council will discuss issues relating to the application of the directive on free movement. The UK will call for a common approach to addressing false marriages, illegal immigration and expulsion of those who abuse free movement rights. This will build on the discussion on the European Court of Justice Metock judgment held at the JHA Council of 25 September, and will feed into preparation of the Commission's review of the implementation of the directive on free movement, due to be published by the end of the year.
	The presidency will seek a general approach to the proposed decision amending the existing arrangements for the European judicial network in civil and commercial matters. This proposal has been considerably modified in line with UK objectives and we can now support it.
	They will also ask the council to agree to conclusions concerning the common frame of reference in contract law. The Government are broadly in favour of the council conclusions.
	The council will be asked to agree a plan of action covering co-operation in the field of e-justice. We can support this initiative.
	Agreement will also be sought to the setting up of a network for legislative co-operation among the Ministries of Justice of the member states. This modest, non-legislative measure is designed to facilitate contacts among justice ministries and promote exchange of information about initiatives in the different member states. The Government can support it.
	The presidency will seek a general approach towards the proposed framework decision setting up a European supervision order, allowing, in effect, for the mutual recognition of bail conditions. This will allow for a person who is resident in one member state, but the subject of criminal proceedings in another, to have their bail conditions monitored in their member state of residence. No such system exists at present, with the effect some individuals are released pre-trial without supervision. The Government have been concerned to ensure that the proposal struck the right balance between public protection and the liberty of the individual, and provided the executing state with sufficient options to act in the public interest in the event of breach of bail conditions or the commission of further offences. The Government welcome the improvements to the text that have been achieved in the course of negotiations and, subject to any further changes to the text before the council, expects to be in a position to agree to the proposal.
	The council will be asked to agree the draft conclusions on child alerts, which invite member states to introduce and develop national mechanisms for alerting the general public in the event of a presumed abduction of a child whose safety is seriously compromised. The UK is happy to agree the draft conclusions.
	There is a substantial list of "A" points—issues on which agreement in principle has been reached already but are before the council for formal adoption without discussion. These will include:
	a draft decision authorising the Commission to negotiate with Georgia a readmission agreement between the European Community and Georgia;council decisions on Eurojust and the European judicial network in criminal matters;the framework decision on data protection, andthe framework decision on the transfer of prisoners.

EU: Transport Council

Lord Carter of Barnes: I am pleased to confirm the agenda items for which BERR has responsibility at the forthcoming Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council (Telecoms Council) in Brussels on 27 November 2008.
	The first substantive item on the agenda is the review of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, which is on the agenda for a political agreement. The French presidency is working hard to achieve agreement on the three elements of this package: amending the directives on a common regulatory framework, authorisation and access (often referred to as the better regulation directive); amending the directives on universal service, users' rights and e-privacy (often referred to as the citizens directive) and the regulation on the new European Electronic Communications Market Authority.
	Although, at present, we still expect a political agreement to be reached (on the whole package) there remains some doubt whether concerns by some member states on individual issues, such as on functional separation, may lead to the better regulation package to be rejected. There is more confidence on the citizen's rights package and on the authority, where there have been significant improvements over the past few months better reflecting UK objectives. The proposed authority no longer has a role in spectrum management or in security and is a smaller, more efficient and independent body intended to be a disseminator of best practice to the 27 national regulatory authorities (NRAs). However, the Commission continues to propose the creation of an agency, giving rise to concerns that it would not be properly independent, and would risk becoming bureaucratic and inefficient. This is unacceptable to the UK, and I shall confirm this point.
	The French presidency compromise text proposes the formalisation of the European Regulators Group (ERG) in Community Law and supported by a separate secretariat. This is much more concordant with UK objectives for the creation of a small and efficient source of independent regulatory expertise which would not be subject to external influence. I will consequently be strongly supporting the presidency compromise text at the council, and urging other member states to do the same.
	The citizens directive has also improved; it no longer risks extending privacy obligations on to private networks, includes greater powers for NRAs to protect citizens and consumers and contains more robust protection for disabled users.
	The better regulation directive is where the French presidency is focusing its last-minute efforts, and the UK has also been working extremely hard to realise our own objectives. However, given the potential this package has to deliver real economic benefits to every European citizen and enterprise, and the time pressures we are under to reach an agreement before the current term of the European Parliament expires, there is a real need to balance our outstanding concerns against the need to give the presidency (now the French, shortly to be the Czech Republic) the necessary mandate to negotiate of behalf of all member states with the European Parliament and the European Commission.
	In my interventions on the regulatory framework, I intend, while congratulating the presidency on its hard work and achievement in bringing forward these near-agreed texts, to express concern that on several substantive issues the approach being taken is neither conducive to enhanced competition across the European Union nor better regulation. I will particularly highlight, though this will depend on the exact detail in the final texts, our disappointment that there is not more robust language on the political independence of regulators, the liberalisation of spectrum or on functional separation as an access remedy.
	This package is subject to co-decision, so the final text voted upon at the council will have to be negotiated and compromised with the European Parliament, which shares many of the UK's objectives. The Commission, which will also have a key role in these co-decision negotiations, also shares many of the UK's objectives.
	I will endeavour to keep you informed at these key stages, but subject to developments over the coming days I am likely to reserve the UK position on these elements of the package, pending a better outcome in the forthcoming discussions with the European Parliament and the European Commission
	Following this, there will be discussion on the general approach of proposals for amending the regulations on roaming on public telephone networks.
	I fully support the aims and objectives of the proposal, with its rationale of consumer benefit and protection. I consider that the proposed price-caps for voice calls and SMS messages strike the right balance between the consumers' interest in low prices, and the operators' legitimate aspirations for the profit margins which are the foundation for sustainable and innovative services. It should be noted that these caps are concordant with those considered appropriate by both the European Regulators Group and our own telecoms regulator, Ofcom.
	I also concur with the need to avoid "bill shock" for those downloading data on their mobiles when abroad, albeit tempered by the need to ensure that transparency, meaning the customer being aware of what they might be billed, can be provided without disproportionate cost or complexity. The UK has consequently submitted alternative text introducing a flat-rate charge which we consider will reduce the need for costly and possibly ineffective systems changes. I will be speaking in support of this approach and the rationale for it.
	I also agree with the Commission that the rapid evolution of the data market, coupled with the existence of alternative sources of supply (such as wi-fi hotspots) means that it would be inappropriate to consider retail price controls for data at this stage. I will be speaking in support of the Commission on this point at council, should others move to include retail price controls for data.
	At the House of Lords Scrutiny Committee hearing of 17 November 2008, I explained some of the history of the roaming regulation and that the national regulatory authorities had requested that the Commission act to address a cross-border issue that could not be tackled effectively by individual member states. I also explained why it was better to set a maximum price-cap rather than an average one, as the latter would reduce the possibility of competitive pricing between suppliers. There are also practical difficulties associated with introducing an average cap as price controls effectively take money out of the market that could be used for investment and could lead to higher prices. We also discussed the possible waterbed effect of roaming caps; and although the evidence is largely anecdotal at the moment, we have seen some increases in pre-pay domestic rates, but elsewhere competition has limited price increases. We will, of course, continue to monitor this situation.
	This will be followed by a presentation from the Commission and discussion on second periodic review of the scope of universal services in communications networks. I am pleased that this is on the agenda as I recently deposited an Explanatory Memorandum about this communication. As you will be aware, I have welcomed the initialisation of this debate on broadband as a universal service, given the importance of broadband in the digital Britain work the department is engaged on. I am confident the debate will identify the best way forward for the European Union on this important issue, not least on such aspects of funding options, whether there should be a minimum capacity for all citizens and how member states should avoid anti-competitive situations.
	During the council debate, I intend to briefly intervene to welcome the Commission communication and to outline some of the thinking taking place in the UK around the importance of broadband as an economic and social driver.
	The final item of substance is adoption of the council conclusions on future networks and the internet. The UK objective for this agenda item is to ensure that the Commission proposals provide a suitable basis for ensuring that the future internet remains open and hence innovative and friendly. It is also necessary to set a marker ensuring that the six forthcoming proposals highlighted in the conclusions of the communication remain technology and service neutral.
	I believe that it is important to engage all the relevant stakeholders in the broadband/next generation network debate and to examine all the relevant areas including private investment, economic and social value, regulation and the public sector. Currently, I am of the view that roll-out of NGNs in the UK should be private sector led and that public sector should limit its interventions to addressing clear market failures.
	On the "Internet of Things", I believe that the seamless connection of devices and sensors to everyday items through fixed and wireless networks will have a profound impact on society in the future, particularly in the way that they interact with individuals, businesses and governmental organisations. I agree with the European Commission that security and privacy issues are of prime importance and that it is imperative that these features are designed into systems and infrastructures, and thus EU R&D funding should be directed into this area.
	I do not plan to intervene in any debate there might be on this item unless there are any attempts to unpick the conclusions.

Identity Cards

Lord West of Spithead: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Identity (Meg Hillier) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:
	The House will wish to know that the Government are publishing tomorrow, Friday 21 November 2008, a consultation paper on draft secondary legislation to be proposed under the Identity Cards Act 2006, including a draft code of practice on civil penalties. Copies of the document, Identity Cards Act Secondary Legislation—a consultation, will be placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses tomorrow.

National Security: Cabinet Office Documents

Baroness Vadera: My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Liam Byrne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 11 Junemy predecessor told the House (Official Report, col.485) of two lost Joint Intelligence Committee assessments and announced that the Cabinet Secretary had asked Sir David Omand to carry out a full investigation of the circumstances of the case. He undertook to keep the House informed of Sir David's conclusions.
	Sir David Omand's review was carried out in the summer. His report could not be finalised pending the outcome of the internal disciplinary process and the police investigations. With the conviction of the individual responsible under Section 8(1) of the Official Secrets Act on 28 October, those processes are now complete. I am grateful to Sir David for the care he has taken in carrying out the review.
	Sir David was also asked to look at the procedures in place for the handling and protection of intelligence material, and for staff training, induction and security awareness.
	Sir David concluded that the documents were mislaid because of the direct actions of the officer and that even if all the current security procedures had been followed to the letter, the inadvertent removal of the documents, though less likely to have occurred, could still have happened. He judged that the loss was not a preventable accident given the mistakes made by the individual. He has also observed that no security system that is both affordable and allows for the efficient conduct of business will provide proof against all forms of human error; and that the key determinant of good security has always been and remains staff with high morale and sense of purpose. Sir David said he had no reservations in that regard about the staff of the Joint Intelligence Organisation, who are highly security-aware.
	Sir David has recommended a number of additional and affordable measures covering security education, practical procedures and emergency arrangements that would reduce some of the more likely human failings. He has also made suggestions about strengthening governance of the future development of security policy. An example of the sort of measures recommended that can be made public without damaging security is the introduction of spot checks. All the recommendations have been accepted: many have already been implemented, but some depend on changes to accommodation in hand and will be implemented when those changes have been made.
	The Intelligence and Security Committee has been fully briefed on Sir David's investigation and recommendations and the action that the Government are taking.
	As my predecessor said in his Statement on 11 June:
	"It is a matter of utmost concern to the Government that this breach of security has happened. We will take all steps to ensure that all individuals who work within the Joint Intelligence Committee staff observe the procedures that are necessary for security. We will continue to do everything necessary to safeguard sensitive intelligence material so that we safeguard the British national interest".

Police: Ethnic Minority Recruits

Lord West of Spithead: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jacqui Smith) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 6 October, I askedhe Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Vernon Coaker) to undertake an assessment of minority ethnic recruitment, retention and progression nationally across the police service. This assessment gave us the opportunity to consider the recent cases as well as look to the future of minority ethnic recruitment, retention and progression when current race employment targets for the police service, set in 1999, come to an end in 2009.
	The assessment is now complete and I am grateful to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Association of Police Authorities (APA), police staff associations, the national police diversity staff support associations, the Post Lawrence Project Group including Doreen Lawrence and others who contributed to this work.
	The assessment confirms that the police service has come a long way and made good progress since the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report (1999) by Sir William MacPherson and the Secret Policeman Programme (2003). Over the years we have seen positive changes in relation to race equality which have also benefited other minority groups. These positive changes have been due to the commitment of many police officers and police staff and prominent community members such as Doreen Lawrence and other independent chairs of the Post Lawrence Project Group. It is important to emphasise that we are not starting from point zero on equality. A lot has been achieved but we should not be complacent and recognise that we still have a lot to do.
	Copies of the assessment paper will be placed in the Library of the House today.

Road Safety

Lord Adonis: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim Fitzpatrick) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	The department has today published a consultation paper on improving compliance with road safety laws. It puts forward proposals across a range of road safety topics, and follows up a number of key commitments from the 2007 review of our road safety strategy, Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone. We will take a more wide-ranging approach to road safety when we consult on our post-2010 strategy next year.
	While we are progressing towards our target of reducing the number of road casualties by 2010, there are still too many people being needlessly killed or seriously injured on the roads. We are focusing our efforts on bringing this number down still further, and compliance is key to achieving this.
	On speeding, we propose a higher six-point fixed penalty for extreme speeders, but not to graduate fixed penalty fines.
	On drink-driving, we invite general views on reducing the drink-drive limit and describe what we are doing to obtain better evidence on this issue. We also propose wider use of targeted road blocks to catch and deter drink-drivers, and to address procedural loopholes which currently hinder drink drive enforcement.
	On drug-driving, current evidential requirements make it very difficult for the police to enforce. We want to explore creating a new offence of driving with an illicit substance in the body for drugs that are known to be impairing.
	On careless driving, there is a burden involved in taking cases to court, which is unnecessary in the majority of cases, where drivers plead guilty, and which impedes enforcement in cases where no collision has occurred. We propose to make careless driving a fixed penalty offence.
	On seatbelts, we set out our plans for improving wearing rates, in particular through the new THINK! campaign launched on 3 November.
	Finally, on remedial training and testing we propose wide-ranging reform to achieve more consistent standards, better-targeted measures and to ensure that training and assessment go hand in hand.
	Some of the issues are complex. We want to be sure that new initiatives are soundly based on solid evidence, and that we can take account of all the implications. This is an important consultation and we hope this document will encourage as many people and organisations as possible to respond with their suggestions and comments.
	The consultation closes on 27 February 2009.
	Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.